I think eliminating the filibuster for appointment gave Democrats some gains, but it also allowed the GOP those same gains. I'm not sure the Democratic gains were entirely worth stuffing the courts with young conservative idealists during the Trump administration.

That presumes a fact not at all in evidence (and with substantial evidence to argue against it):

That if Democrats had not nuked the appointment filibuster in 2013, Mitch McConnell would've allowed Democrats to filibuster Trump's judicial nominees indefinitely.

I find that incredibly implausible. McConnell did not need Democrats to eliminate the filibuster in 2013. He had a majority in the Senate in 2017, and he could've eliminated it without Democrats' consent. Democrats didn't "allow" Trump to stuff the courts with nutjobs, as if they would've been required to keep the filibuster if not for Harry Reid's actions in 2013. McConnell could have, and would have, eliminated it for Trump.

So if Democrats hadn't nuked it in 2013, the result would've been that McConnell nukes the filibuster in 2017 instead, and all those vacancies filled by Obama after nuking the filibuster would've been filled by Trump.

If your argument relies on Mitch McConnell's respect for norms and the opposition party, your argument has a fatal flaw.

I find that incredibly implausible. McConnell did not need Democrats to eliminate the filibuster in 2013. He had a majority in the Senate in 2017, and he could've eliminated it without Democrats' consent. Democrats didn't "allow" Trump to stuff the courts with nutjobs, as if they would've been required to keep the filibuster if not for Harry Reid's actions in 2013. McConnell could have, and would have, eliminated it for Trump.

So if Democrats hadn't nuked it in 2013, the result would've been that McConnell nukes the filibuster in 2017 instead, and all those vacancies filled by Obama after nuking the filibuster would've been filled by Trump.

If your argument relies on Mitch McConnell's respect for norms and the opposition party, your argument has a fatal flaw.

I understand. It is possible that McConnell may not have had the votes to upset the norm in 2017 and remove the filibuster, but that strikes me as foolish hope on my part, considering the GOP and McConnell's disrespect for precedent and decorum.

I still think that it has a net advantage to the Republicans, but I'm not sure I would do anything differently. It just sucks that it's a net advantage.

I could see McConnell using the threat of a filibuster to nix Carson, Perry or DeVos as nominees and get Trump to nominate other people, but eventually he would've eliminated it because McConnell has no problem with right-wing extremists per se. Those three are just embarrassingly incompetent and so McConnell probably would've preferred more competent ideologues.

There's no way he'd let, for example, Jeff Sessions be completely blocked by a filibuster. And Sessions is likely a candidate that could've attracted a Democratic filibuster. And if not Sessions, someone else would've. The filibuster would've been dead by April.

I could see McConnell using the threat of a filibuster to nix Carson, Perry or DeVos as nominees and get Trump to nominate other people, but eventually he would've eliminated it because McConnell has no problem with right-wing extremists per se. Those three are just embarrassingly incompetent and so McConnell probably would've preferred more competent ideologues.

There's no way he'd let, for example, Jeff Sessions be completely blocked by a filibuster. And Sessions is likely a candidate that could've attracted a Democratic filibuster. And if not Sessions, someone else would've. The filibuster would've been dead by April.

It was - The Senate changed the rules in April 2017 by a party-line vote to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, so they could approve Gorsuch. I have no idea why the Democrats didn't filibuster the rule change, but it wouldn't surprise me if McConnell pulled some trick to avoid it.

I could see McConnell using the threat of a filibuster to nix Carson, Perry or DeVos as nominees and get Trump to nominate other people, but eventually he would've eliminated it because McConnell has no problem with right-wing extremists per se. Those three are just embarrassingly incompetent and so McConnell probably would've preferred more competent ideologues.

There's no way he'd let, for example, Jeff Sessions be completely blocked by a filibuster. And Sessions is likely a candidate that could've attracted a Democratic filibuster. And if not Sessions, someone else would've. The filibuster would've been dead by April.

It was - The Senate changed the rules in April 2017 by a party-line vote to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, so they could approve Gorsuch.

Yeah, but I meant it would've been dead for executive appointees by April if it had still been in force. I could see McConnell utilizing it at first to shape some of the initial cabinet appointees, but he wouldn't have let it go on forever because he wouldn't only want appointees that could overcome a Democratic filibuster.

Quote:

I have no idea why the Democrats didn't filibuster the rule change, but it wouldn't surprise me if McConnell pulled some trick to avoid it.

1. Because the filibuster doesn't apply to votes on points of order. So they couldn't.

2. Even if that weren't the case, the rules have to be adopted anew at the beginning of each Congress, because future Congresses are not bound by prior ones. Adopting the rules only ever requires a simple majority. If McConnell had been required to, he would've simply eliminated it on January 3.

Nonetheless, it can be more difficult to change some rules mid-Congress, but it's not that hard either way.

Giving up the filibuster is kind of like gerrymandering, they're both unintended consequences of the system, weaponized and abused by both sides. Like doping, if anyone gets to use it for their advantage, everyone else has to, unless everyone else feels like losing a lot.

In that light I think it makes sense to get rid of it. With respect for the rules going by the wayside, these things aren't cute any more.

I wouldn't guess you to be a fan of Senator Bennet, while he's basically a mainstream Democrat, he's a bit on the moderate side of that. Definitely not among the most progressive Democrats in the Senate anyway.

In fact, my main interest is in finding someone who can beat the Orange Disease in the White House. I obviously prefer a progressive, but whoever looks to have a shot at winning will get my vote at this juncture. I admire the way Bennet kicked the living shit out of Ted Cruz — actually accusing him of KILLING people — but also the way he demolished Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and the Orange Filth himself. This is what is needed.

I loved it when he said that he wasn’t even going to talk about what the Short-Fingered Vulgarian said about Cruz’s father.

Hey, if Bennet can snag the nomination and win, so be it. Even if he is a moderate, he will be subject to rising progressive pressure, the grass-roots Green New Deal. Any president will have to respond to changing times.

My beef with Hillary Clinton was not that she was a “moderate,” per se. It was her opportunistic vote for the Iraq War, her being a bought and paid for shill for Wall Street, and for being a generally shitty and uninspiring candidate, who lost because of those things, and not because of James Comey, Russian trolls, the New York Times (which endorsed her!) third-party candidates, or any other lame excuse.

Of course pushing a truly progressive agenda is going to be a hard slog for anyone, even for Bernie or Warren if either wins. I saw that harridan Dianne Feinstein browbeat those great kids the other day. I lived in San Francisco when she was mayor. She was a shitty mayor (refusing to march in the gay pride parade? Vetoing domestic partners legislation? Sucking up to rapacious real-estate developers?), she’s a shitty senator, she’s a shitty person, and her time is almost over with. These kids that tried to talk to her are going to have to live with the climate catastrophe unfolding, and all this bitch could do is treat them as if she were their parent and they were her bratty stepchildren who were demanding dessert before dinner. FU, Dianne, and all people in the Democratic Party like you. Just take a look at this CRAP piece from The Atlantic about Feinstein’s meeting with those great kids. THERE’S your shitty mainstream media for you. Feinstein actually bragged about winning her most recent election (like Trump brags) and dismissed a 16-year-old because she wasn’t old enough to vote for her! Ugh!

What Feinstein told those kids is true — that right now, the Green New Deal can’t get passed. But that’s NOW. What about next year, two, three years down the line? What about if people like her took a stand and tried to explain to the public the catastrophe that is unfolding? But, no! No, you just lord it over those kids, Dianne, besmirch their idealism, make a point of trying to crush their dreams, and brag about being elected! And yammer about how you owe them nothing because they aren’t old enough to vote for you! Yuck!

It looks to me as if it’s becoming increasingly important to find someone, anyone, who can beat Drumpster, because Robert Mueller is producing nothing. It is long past time for him to put up or shut up about what he has or doesn’t have on President Grease Puss. The Watergate investigation lasted less than half as long as this investigation, involved not one but two special prosecutors, and ended with Nixon resigning. Every week for months I’ve been reading about how Mueller is about to deliver the goods, and then, of course … nothing happens, as usual. Consequentially, I’m increasingly resigned to the fact that Drumpf will be the GOP nominee in 2020 and might even win again.

Too bad AOC isn’t old enough to run. But we’ll be seeing lots more of her down the road, I reckon, not in spite of, but because of, the ridicule and opposition of aging reactionary fossils like Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi has a significantly more liberal voting record than Bennet, but she's the reactionary? Ok then.

And Watergate started in 1972, and Nixon resigned in 1974, so not seeing how it last half as long... And 34 indictments, including 6 of Trump's close advisors, isn't exactly nothing... But yes, Trump will probably be the nominee in 2020. Nixon didn't have Fox News and similar outlets, and didn't have a party that was as ideologically homogeneous and contemptuous of the opposition party. Nixon would probably survive in today's media and political environment.

Pelosi has a significantly more liberal voting record than Bennet, but she's the reactionary? Ok then.

And Watergate started in 1972, and Nixon resigned in 1974, so not seeing how it last half as long... And 34 indictments, including 6 of Trump's close advisors, isn't exactly nothing... But yes, Trump will probably be the nominee in 2020. Nixon didn't have Fox News and similar outlets, and didn't have a party that was as ideologically homogeneous and contemptuous of the opposition party. Nixon would probably survive in today's media and political environment.

Archibald Cox’s Watergate investigation began on May 25, 1973, NOT bloody June 1972, when the Watergate break-in took place. Nixon resigned on Aug. 8, 1974 — after Cox was replaced by Leon Jaworski in the wake of the Saturday Night Massacre.
Gosh, let’s count! That was less than fifteen months between the very first special prosecutor investigating Nixon and Nixon’s resignation.

Robert Mueller was appointed on May 17,2017, to serve as special counsel in the Russia investigation. That is nearly two years ago. I don’t care who he has indicted — it is time he put up or shut up about TRUMP. He owes it to the country.

Pelosi is from Blue California and Bennet is from Purple Colorado. You go parse the difference. And yes, Pelosi is a reactionary fossil, IMO. She recently airily dismissed the Green New Deal as the “green dream,” indicating, as with Feinstein, her condescending contempt for young people and progressives.

Investigations of the Watergate break in began in 1972. The special prosecutor wasn't the only investigation that occurred. And Mueller didn't start from scratch either. It would seem to make more sense to start the timeline from when investigations of the event began, not when a particular person was put in charge.

Also, why put up or "shut up"? We don't have the Nixon tapes this time, what is the specific reason you think it should've been done by now, particularly if he needs to be able to flip Trump associates, etc.?

And it's not clear what Mueller's goal is - is he trying to have an ironclad case to put in a court of law, and to indict Trump, is he trying to maximize the information he can get (releasing what he knows would affect his ability to get information out of some people), or is he aiming instead at the court of public opinion/trial in the senate, recognizing that Trump will probably not be able to be indicted, and the standards that Congressional Republicans will demand will go far beyond what a court of law would. If he is interested in assuring accountability for Trump, he will be aiming at a standard of evidence that will demand Congressional evidence, which is higher than a court would require if Trump were a private citizen. That might take more time.

Either way, I see no reason to assume he "should" be done by now or that there's something nefarious about him not being done. The Whitewater investigation went on for far longer and found far less of interest.

I'm less interested in what you think Pelosi indicated about her attitude towards the GND, which is inflected by not just the content or policy goals, but by presentation and tactics, but what she wants to do about environmental policy and her record on the issues. While she's not the highest scoring Democrat on that issue, she gets a better rating than, say, Bernie Sanders according to environmental groups. Neither of them are bad by any means (Joe Manchin is by far the worst, and the other outlier senators on environmental issues - Donnelly, Heitkamp, McCaskill, Nelson - all lost last year). Bennet is bit below Pelosi and Sanders.

It looks like all your statewide government officials are Democrats except for Gardner, but other than Bennet, they also all only got elected in 2018 which could be an issue. But you also have a healthy caucus in the state legislature (especially the lower chamber).

Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney’s health care policy, with John McCain’s climate policy, with Bill Clinton’s tax policy, and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy,” DeLong notes. “And did George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years? No, they fucking did not.”

The result, he argues, is the nature of the Democratic Party needs to shift. Rather than being a center-left coalition dominated by market-friendly ideas designed to attract conservative support, the energy of the coalition should come from the left and its broad, sweeping ideas. Market-friendly neoliberals, rather than pushing their own ideology, should work to improve ideas on the left. This, he believes, is the most effective and sustainable basis for Democratic politics and policy for the foreseeable future.

I agree that the energy spent to appease the right is energy wasted.
Iowa caucus Feb 3 2020, and still more candidates to declare and 12 scheduled debates between now and then.
There will be a lot of money and effort spent promoting "centrist," pro-ruling class, incrementalist positions and candidates, who will want to do just what DeLong is cautioning against.

There'll be no shortage of competent Dems, I'm sure. The seat looks more poachable almost every day, what with Gardner shooting himself in the dick every time he opens his mouth. Andrew Romanoff, former speaker of the state house of representatives, would make a good candidate and a great senator.

Hickenlooper's main appeal is proven ability to win statewide elections (he's done it twice). Pretty much all the other Dems who've done that are already elected officials whose terms don't end until 2023.

Former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has won a whopping three statewide elections, two for state attorney general and one for U.S. senator. (Current Senator Michael Bennet first got his seat by gubernatorial appointment when Salazar took the Interior jerb.) He would have been the head of Hillary Clinton's transition team in 2016, but a bunch of stump-jumping racist morons nixed that. However, he's been out of the public office biz since 2013 and AFAIK has no interest in jumping back in. Just as well, I suppose. Salazar once threatened to kick a report's ass for asking a question he didn't like, and he's done too many anti-Democratic thing over the years for my liking.

__________________"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

Jay Inslee is insies, Brown is an outsy. I hope Inslee gets serious traction because his signature issue is climate change. Even if he doesn't win, I hope he gets enough support to underscore the urgency of the physical reality inherent in the situation to the remaining candidates. Supposedly we have a little over a decade to keep a lid on things, and at the rate we're going, the lids coming off.

__________________Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, Bernie Sanders is an extremely interesting phenomenon. He’s a decent, honest person. That’s pretty unusual in the political system. Maybe there are two of them in the world, you know. But he’s considered radical and extremist, which is a pretty interesting characterization, because he’s basically a mainstream New Deal Democrat.

His positions would not have surprised President Eisenhower, who said, in fact, that anyone who does not accept New Deal programs doesn’t belong in the American political system. That’s now considered very radical. The other interesting aspect of Sanders’s positions is that they’re quite strongly supported by the general public, and have been for a long time. That’s true on taxes. It’s true on healthcare. So, take, say, healthcare. His proposal for a national healthcare system, meaning the kind of system that just about every other developed country has, at half the per capita cost of the United States and comparable or better outcomes, that’s considered very radical. But it’s been the position of the majority of the American population for a long time. So, you go back, say, to the Reagan—right now, for example, latest polls, about 60 percent of the population favor it. When Obama put through the Affordable Care Act, there was, you recall, a public option. But that was dropped. It was dropped even though it was supported by about almost two-thirds of the population.

You go back earlier, say, to the Reagan years, about 70 percent of the population thought that national healthcare should be in the Constitution, because it’s such an obvious right. And, in fact, about 40 percent of the population thought it was in the Constitution, again, because it’s such an obvious right. The same is true on tax policy and others. So we have this phenomenon where someone is taking positions that would have been considered pretty mainstream during the Eisenhower years, that are supported by a large part, often a considerable majority, of the population, but he’s dismissed as radical and extremist. That’s an indication of how the spectrum has shifted to the right during the neoliberal period, so far to the right that the contemporary Democrats are pretty much what used to be called moderate Republicans. And the Republicans are just off the spectrum. They’re not a legitimate parliamentary party anymore. And Sanders has—the significant part of—he has pressed the mainstream Democrats a little bit towards the progressive side. You see that in Clinton’s statements. But he has mobilized a large number of young people, these young people who are saying, "Look, we’re not going to consent anymore." And if that turns into a continuing, organized, mobilized—mobilized force, that could change the country—maybe not for this election, but in the longer term.

If you want to be extra accurate for Maltese, it would be boot-ti-jyej. It would be spelled Buttiġieġ in Maltese; the 'ġ' represents the same sound as English 'j', but the other letters are pronounced like Italian or Spanish.

I simply adore Mayor Pete. I don't know or care anything about his policy positions but I am kind of an easy demographic for a multilingual gay 30-something liberal.

I am also glad that we are getting the Mayor Pete surge out of our system early this cycle. Obviously as Democrats our natural impulse is simply to crave defeat, so the faster we can play-act these fantasy candidates and move on, the better. Hopefully Beto will be the next one we move past.